Eric. There is not the faintest question that if Rossi had one tenth of
what he claims, he could eventually persuade Tom Clarke and any
scientist with any integrity through a series of rigorous tests.
AA. Oh yes? Fleischmann and Pons produced excess heat and that is not
acknowledged to this very day.
Eric, we have hints that there is a case that he sought to defraud IH.
His not allowing IH's expert to see the customer area will not look good
to the court. If anyone is able to substantiate his claim that IH
signed away the right to see that area, that would add substance to this
particular question.
AA. How many times do I have to repeat it? It should NOT be necessary
to see where the generated heat is dissipated in order to measure the
output of the 1 MW plant. The ERV was the independent judge and you
ignore him. Remember it was Rossi that took IH to court not the other
way around.
On 6/4/2016 4:46 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 2:50 PM, a.ashfield <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Eric. If he has something, let him show that he does through
rigorous testing.
AA. Why the hell should he? He doesn't owe you anything and it
is not in his interest to do prove it to academia. I rather doubt
that would be possible anyway, as they think LENR is impossible.
Think Clarke's Law. Any evidence of anomalous heat is
measurement error.
There is not the faintest question that if Rossi had one tenth of what
he claims, he could eventually persuade Tom Clarke and any scientist
with any integrity through a series of rigorous tests. He doesn't
have the obligation to do this, and he doesn't owe me anything. But
neither do I owe him anything. And I will happily apply the standard
of science to his claims, which are readily found wanting by any
reasonable standard.
Eric he seems to think that he is entitled to millions of dollars
of other people's money without doing the footwork necessary to
merit that kind of investment.
AA. He has to do enough to persuade his backers and he has
clearly done that. He has avoided the fraudsters route of taking
money from a gullible public although he obviously had the ability
to that if he had wanted to.
There is prima facie evidence to the contrary; we have hints that
there is a case that he sought to defraud IH. His not allowing IH's
expert to see the customer area will not look good to the court. If
anyone is able to substantiate his claim that IH signed away the right
to see that area, that would add substance to this particular question.
Eric
